Appeal 2006-2800
Application 10/151,388
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejection.
Weeks discloses an easy-open container comprising 1) a film (12,
which corresponds to the Appellants’ base web) having a pair of spaced
perforated lines of tearing (22, 24) that extend completely through the film,
and 2) a base layer (14, which corresponds to the Appellants’ frangible
layer) that is attached to one side of the film and overlies the perforations
(col. 4, ll. 7-15; figs. 1 and 5). A notch (36) preferably is provided to initiate
tearing across the top edge (26) of the container along the perforated lines of
tearing (col. 5, ll. 16-19). Tearing along those lines removes the container’s
top edge and the contiguous portions of the base layer (col. 6, ll. 14-18;
figs. 2 and 5).
La Pierre discloses an easy-open container comprising a membrane
(12, which corresponds to the Appellants’ base web) having spaced
perforated lines of tearing (31, 31’) completely through it (col. 8, ll. 3-4 and
66-68; fig. 8). Tearing along the perforated lines is initiated using a bead
(30’, which corresponds to the Appellants’ tear bead) (col. 8, ll. 10-13; fig.
5).
The Appellants argue that Weeks does not disclose a tear bead and
that La Pierre’s tear bead is on the layer having the perforated lines (Br. 4).
The Appellants argue that “the claims recite that the tear bead is on the layer
other than the layer which includes the perforated lines. This is not
disclosed or made obvious by the cited art, alone or in combination”
(Br. 4-5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013